661 S.W.3d 630
Tex. App.2023Background:
- Appellant Julio Hernandez‑Faced was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- Facts: During a domestic confrontation at a relative’s home, appellant pulled a gun during an exchange and, after a brief struggle, shot and killed the complainant, Roberto Bermudez; appellant was arrested at the scene.
- Voir dire: The judge and prosecutor each explained the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; appellant’s counsel later used a scaled/questionnaire form asking jurors to rate whether they would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a prospective juror appeared confused and the trial court told counsel to move on.
- Judgment paperwork: the written judgment included a 955‑day jail credit line and a note "TOWARD INCARCERATION, FINE, AND COSTS"; the oral sentence, however, included an expressly pronounced $10,000 fine and the clerk’s record contains a bill of costs totaling $1,214.
- Procedural posture: Appellant raised two issues on appeal—(1) the trial court improperly limited his voir dire, and (2) the written judgment and jail‑credit notation waived all fines and costs (and, alternatively, required a remand for an on‑the‑record ability‑to‑pay inquiry). The court modified the written judgment to reflect the orally imposed fine and affirmed as modified.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hernandez‑Faced) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting appellant’s voir dire (the scaled "1–7" question about requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt) | The curtailed scaled question prevented meaningful inquiry into jurors’ willingness to hold the State to its burden and was improper limitation of voir dire | The topic had already been explored by judge and prosecutor; the scaled question was confusing and duplicative, so the court properly exercised discretion to limit repetitive/confusing inquiry | No abuse of discretion; voir dire limitation was within trial court’s broad discretion — issue overruled |
| 2) Whether the written judgment’s jail‑credit notation waived the $10,000 fine and court costs or requires remand for an on‑the‑record ability‑to‑pay hearing | The written judgment’s notation and 955 days of jail credit (assuming a statutory $100/day credit) effectively erased the fine and costs; alternatively, a remand is required because current law requires an on‑the‑record ability‑to‑pay inquiry | Oral pronouncement imposed the $10,000 fine; nothing in the record shows an intentional waiver; court costs are payable via the certified bill of costs; the 2021 amendment requiring on‑the‑record inquiry does not retroactively invalidate prior off‑record inquiries | No waiver found; modify judgment to include the orally pronounced $10,000 fine; costs stand and no remand for an ability‑to‑pay hearing required — issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court has broad discretion in conducting voir dire)
- Hernandez v. State, 390 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court may limit confusing or improper voir dire questions)
- Jacobs v. State, 560 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (scope of proper voir dire topics and trial court discretion)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (trial court may limit duplicative or repetitious voir dire)
- Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (no error in prohibiting duplicitous voir dire when investigation not entirely prevented)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate courts may modify judgments to speak the truth)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court costs need not be orally pronounced to be effective)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court costs are not punitive and need not be pronounced in open court)
- Bonds v. State, 503 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (bill of costs provided to defendant makes costs collectible)
- Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 262 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. 2008) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)